de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation

D. Arizona

de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation

DecidedJune 24, 2025

Docket2:21-cv-00926

StatusUnknown

This text of de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation (de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Myrna de Jesus, No. CV-21-00926-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 UnitedHealth Group,

13 Defendant. 14 15 In April 2021, Plaintiff filed this defamation action, seeking $10 million in damages. 16 In January 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered 17 judgment in Defendant’s favor. (Doc. 97.) In September 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 18 (Doc. 102.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion to seal the entire case file in this closed case 19 and to remove “case information from public platforms such as the internet and public 20 records databases.” (Doc. 104.) According to Plaintiff, this relief is necessary to address 21 her “substantial privacy and security concerns.” (Id.) 22 Plaintiff’s request is denied. See, e.g., Coppinger v. Don Sanderson Ford Inc., 2025 23 WL 10000738 (D. Ariz. 2025) (denying plaintiff’s belated motion to seal the complaint, 24 because “[w]here a party puts certain information at issue, that party’s ability to claim a 25 privacy interest in that information is weakened,” and further noting that “once information 26 is public, it is no longer confidential—a belated decision that publishing information on 27 the public docket was unwise does not provide good cause, let alone a compelling reason, 28 to retroactively seal documents that have long been part of the public record”) (cleaned 1|| up); Low v. Bartolotti, 2021 WL 2637318, *2-3 (D. Hawaii 2021) (noting that “although || some circumstances merit the denial of public access to certain court documents or judicial 3 || records, those circumstances are limited—extremely limited in the instance of sealing an 4|| entire case file” and denying sealing request because the movant’s “conclusory” allegations of harm were “simply not enough to overcome the heightened scrutiny required for a court || to seal an entire civil case file’) (cleaned up). 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 104) is denied. 10 2. This case remains closed. 11 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. 12 13 iam =? 14 i CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Myrna de Jesus, No. CV-21-00926-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 UnitedHealth Group,

13 Defendant. 14 15 In April 2021, Plaintiff filed this defamation action, seeking $10 million in damages. 16 In January 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered 17 judgment in Defendant’s favor. (Doc. 97.) In September 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 18 (Doc. 102.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion to seal the entire case file in this closed case 19 and to remove “case information from public platforms such as the internet and public 20 records databases.” (Doc. 104.) According to Plaintiff, this relief is necessary to address 21 her “substantial privacy and security concerns.” (Id.) 22 Plaintiff’s request is denied. See, e.g., Coppinger v. Don Sanderson Ford Inc., 2025 23 WL 10000738 (D. Ariz. 2025) (denying plaintiff’s belated motion to seal the complaint, 24 because “[w]here a party puts certain information at issue, that party’s ability to claim a 25 privacy interest in that information is weakened,” and further noting that “once information 26 is public, it is no longer confidential—a belated decision that publishing information on 27 the public docket was unwise does not provide good cause, let alone a compelling reason, 28 to retroactively seal documents that have long been part of the public record”) (cleaned 1|| up); Low v. Bartolotti, 2021 WL 2637318, *2-3 (D. Hawaii 2021) (noting that “although || some circumstances merit the denial of public access to certain court documents or judicial 3 || records, those circumstances are limited—extremely limited in the instance of sealing an 4|| entire case file” and denying sealing request because the movant’s “conclusory” allegations of harm were “simply not enough to overcome the heightened scrutiny required for a court || to seal an entire civil case file’) (cleaned up). 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 104) is denied. 10 2. This case remains closed. 11 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. 12 13 iam =? 14 i CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-jesus-v-dignity-health-corporation-azd-2025.